Statistical analysis using Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets have become somewhat of a standard for data storage,
at least for smaller data sets. This, along with the program often being packaged with new
computers, naturally encourages its use for statistical analyses. This is unfortunate, since
Excel is most decidedly not a statistical package.
Here’s an example of how the numerical inaccuracies in Excel can get you into trouble.
Consider the following data set:

Data Display

Row X Y

1 10000000001 1000000000.000
2 10000000002 1000000000.000
3 10000000003 1000000000.900
4 10000000004 1000000001.100
5 10000000005 1000000001.010
6 10000000006 1000000000.990
7 10000000007 1000000001.100
8 10000000008 1000000000.999
9 10000000009 1000000000.000
10 10000000010 1000000000.001

Here is Minitab output for the regression:

Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

Y =9.71E+08 + 0.0029 X

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 970667056 616256122 1.58 0.154
X 0.00293 0.06163 0.05 0.963

S = 0.5597 R-Sq = 0.0% R-Sq(adj) = 0.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 0.0007 0.0007 0.00 0.963

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 1
 Residual Error 8 2.5065 0.3133
Total 9 2.5072

Now, here are the values obtained when using the regression program available in the
Analysis Toolpak of Microsoft Excel 2002 (the same results came from earlier versions
of Excel; I will say something about Excel 2003 later):

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 65535
R Square -0.538274369
Adjusted R Square -0.730558665
Standard Error 0.694331016
Observations 10

ANOVA
df SS MS F Signif F
Regression 1 -1.349562541 -1.349562541 -2.799367289 #NUM!
Residual 8 3.85676448 0.48209556
Total 9 2.507201939

Coeff Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 2250000001 0 65535 #NUM!
X Variable 1 -0.125 0 65535 #NUM!

Each of the nine numbers given above is incorrect! The slope estimate has the wrong
sign, the estimated standard errors of the coefficients are zero (making it impossible to
construct t–statistics), and the values of R2 , F and the regression sum of squares are
negative! It’s obvious here that the output is garbage (even Excel seems to know this,
as the #NUM!’s seem to imply), but what if the numbers that had come out weren’t absurd
— just wrong? Unless Excel does better at addressing these computational problems, it
cannot be considered a serious candidate for use in statistical analysis.
What went wrong here? The summary statistics from Excel give us a clue:

X Y
Mean 10000000006 Mean 1000000001
Standard Error 0 Standard Error 6.746192342
Median 10000000006 Median 1000000001

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 2
 Mode #N/A Mode 1000000000
Standard Deviation 0 Standard Deviation 21.33333333
Sample Variance 0 Sample Variance 455.1111111

Here are the corresponding values if the all X values are decreased by 10000000000, and
all Y values are decreased by 1000000000. The standard deviations and sample variances
should, of course, be identical in the two cases, but they are not (the values below are
correct):

X Y
Mean 5.5 Mean 0.61
Standard Error 0.957427108 Standard Error 0.166906561
Median 5.5 Median 0.945
Mode #N/A Mode 0
Standard Deviation 3.027650354 Standard Deviation 0.527804888
Sample Variance 9.166666667 Sample Variance 0.278578

Thus, simple descriptive statistics are not trustworthy either in situations where the stan-
dard deviation is small relative to the absolute level of the data.
Using Excel to analyze multiple regression data brings its own problems. Consider
the following data set, provided by Gary Simon:

Y X1 X2 X3 X4

5.88 1 1 1 1
2.56 6 1 1 1
11.11 1 1 1 1
0.79 6 1 1 1
0.00 6 1 1 1
0.00 0 1 1 1
15.60 8 1 1 1
3.70 4 1 1 1
8.49 3 1 1 1
51.20 6 1 1 1
14.20 7 1 1 1
7.14 5 1 1 1
4.20 7 1 1 1
6.15 4 1 1 1
10.46 6 1 1 1
0.00 8 1 1 1

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 3
 10.42 2 1 1 1
17.36 5 1 1 1
13.41 8 1 1 1
41.67 0 1 1 1
2.78 0 1 1 1
2.98 8 1 1 1
9.62 7 1 1 1
0.00 0 1 1 1
4.65 5 1 0 2
3.13 3 1 0 2
24.58 6 1 0 2
0.00 1 1 0 2
5.56 4 1 0 2
9.26 3 1 0 2
0.00 0 1 0 2
0.00 0 1 0 2
3.13 1 1 0 2
0.00 0 1 0 2
7.56 5 0 1 3
9.93 6 0 1 3
0.00 8 0 1 3
16.67 6 0 1 3
16.89 7 0 1 3
13.71 6 0 1 3
6.35 5 0 1 3
2.50 3 0 1 3
2.47 7 0 1 3
21.74 3 0 1 3
23.60 8 0 0 4
11.11 8 0 0 4
0.00 7 0 0 4
3.57 8 0 0 4
2.90 5 0 0 4
2.94 3 0 0 4
2.42 8 0 0 4
18.75 4 0 0 4
0.00 5 0 0 4
2.27 3 0 0 4

There is nothing apparently unusual about these data, and they are, in fact, from an
actual clinical experiment. Here is output from Excel 2002 (and earlier versions) for a
regression of Y on X1, X2, X3, and X4:

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 4
 SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.218341811
R Square 0.047673146
Adjusted R Square -0.030067821
Standard Error 10.23964549
Observations 54

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 4 257.1897798 64.29744495 0.613230678 0.655111835
Residual 49 5137.666652 104.8503398
Total 53 5394.856431

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 0.384972384 0 65535 #NUM!
X Variable 1 0.386246607 0.570905635 0.6765507 0.501872378
X Variable 2 2.135547339 0 65535 #NUM!
X Variable 3 4.659552583 0 65535 #NUM!
X Variable 4 0.952380952 0 65535 #NUM!

Obviously there’s something strange going on here: the intercept and three of the
four coefficients have standard error equal to zero, with undefined p–values (why Excel
gives what would seem to be t–statistics equal to infinity as 65535 is a different matter!).
One coefficient has more sensible–looking output. In any event, Excel does give a fitted
regression with associated F –statistic and standard error of the estimate.
Unfortunately, this is all incorrect. There is no meaningful regression possible here,
because the predictors are perfectly collinear (this was done inadvertently by the clinical
researcher). That is, no regression model can be fit using all four predictors. Here is what
happens if you try to use Minitab to fit the model:

Regression Analysis

* X4 is highly correlated with other X variables

* X4 has been removed from the equation

The regression equation is

Y = 4.19 + 0.386 X1 + 0.23 X2 + 3.71 X3

Predictor Coef StDev T P

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 5
 Constant 4.194 3.975 1.06 0.296
X1 0.3862 0.5652 0.68 0.497
X2 0.231 3.159 0.07 0.942
X3 3.707 2.992 1.24 0.221

S = 10.14 R-Sq = 4.8% R-Sq(adj) = 0.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 257.2 85.7 0.83 0.481
Residual Error 50 5137.7 102.8
Total 53 5394.9

Minitab correctly notes the perfect collinearity among the four predictors and drops
one, allowing the regression to proceed. Which variable is dropped out depends on the
order of the predictors given to Minitab, but all of the fitted models yield the same R2 ,
F , and standard error of the estimate (of these statistics, Excel only gets the R2 right,
since it mistakenly thinks that there are four predictors in the model, affecting the other
calculations). This is another indication that the numerical methods used by these versions
of Excel are hopelessly out of date, and cannot be trusted.
These problems have been known in the statistical community for many years, going
back to the earliest versions of Excel, but new versions of Excel continued to be released
without them being addressed. Finally, with the release of Excel 2003, the basic algo-
rithmic instabilities in the regression function LINEST() were addressed, and the software
yields correct answers for these regression examples (as well as for the univariate statistics
example). Excel 2003 also recognizes the perfect collinearity in the previous example,
and gives the slope coefficient for one variable as 0 with a standard error of 0 (although it
still tries to calculate a t-test, resulting in t = 65535).
Unfortunately, not all of Excel’s problems were fixed in the latest version. Here is
another data set:

X1 X2

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 6
 5 5
6 5
7 4
8 3
9 2
10 1

Let’s say that these are paired data, and we are interested in whether the population
mean for X1 is different from that of X2. Minitab output for a paired sample t–test is as
follows:

Paired T-Test and Confidence Interval

Paired T for X1 - X2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

X1 10 5.500 3.028 0.957
X2 10 3.000 1.491 0.471
Difference 10 2.50 3.37 1.07

95% CI for mean difference: (0.09, 4.91)

T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs not = 0): T-Value = 2.34
P-Value = 0.044

Here is output from Excel:

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 5.5 3
Variance 9.166666667 2.222222222
Observations 10 10
Pearson Correlation 0
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 9
t Stat 2.342606428
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.021916376
t Critical one-tail 1.833113856
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.043832751
t Critical two-tail 2.262158887

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff 7
The output is (basically) the same, of course, as it should be. Now, let’s say that the data
have a couple of more observations with missing data:

X1 X2

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 5
7 4
8 3
9 2
10 1
10
10

Obviously, these two additional observations don’t provide any information about the
difference between X1 and X2, so they shouldn’t change the paired t–test. They don’t
change the Minitab output, but look at the Excel output:

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 5.909090909 3.636363636
Variance 10.09090909 6.454545455
Observations 11 11
Pearson Correlation 0
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 10
t Stat 1.357813616
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1021848282
t Critical one-tail 1.812461505
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.204369656
t Critical two-tail 2.228139238

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff

8
 I don’t know what Excel has done here, but it’s certainly not right! The statistics
for each variable separately (means, variances) are correct, but irrelevant. Interestingly,
the results were different (but still wrong) in Excel 97, so apparently a new error was
introduced in the later versions of the software, which has still not been corrected. The
same results are obtained if the observations with missing data are put in the first two
rows, rather than the last two. These are not the results that are obtained if the two
additional observations are collapsed into one (with no missing data), which are correct:

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 5.909090909 3.636363636
Variance 10.09090909 6.454545455
Observations 11 11
Pearson Correlation 0.35482964
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 10
t Stat 2.291746243
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.022440088
t Critical one-tail 1.812461505
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.044880175
t Critical two-tail 2.228139238

Missing data can cause other problems in all versions of Excel. For example, if you
try to perform a regression using variables with missing data (either in the predictors or
target), you get the error message Regression - LINEST() function returns error.
Please check input ranges again. This means that you would have to cut and paste
the variables to new locations, omitting any rows with missing data yourself.
Other, less catastrophic, problems come from using (any version of) Excel to do
statistical analysis. Excel requires you to put all predictors in a regression in contiguous
columns, requiring repeated reorganizations of the data as different models are fit. Further,
the software does not provide any record of what is done, making it virtually impossible to
document or duplicate what was done. In addition, you might think that what Excel calls
a “Normal probability plot” is a normal (qq) plot of the residuals, but you’d be wrong. In
fact, the plot that comes out is a plot of the ordered target values y(i) versus 50(2i − 1)/n
(the ordered percentiles). That is, it is effectively a plot checking uniformity of the target
variable (something of no interest in a regression context), and has nothing to do with

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff

9
normality at all!
To my way of thinking, the solution to all of these problems is to perform statistical
analyses using the appropriate tool — a good statistical package. Many such packages are
available, usually with a Windows-type graphical user interface (such as Minitab), often
costing $100 or less. A remarkably powerful package, R, is free! (See www.r-project.org
for information.) If you must do statistical calculations within Excel, there are add-on
packages available that do not use the Excel algorithmic engine, but these can cost as
much as many standalone packages, and you must be sure that you trust the designers to
have carefully checked their code for problems.

Notes: The document “Using Excel for Statistical Data Analysis,” by Eva Goldwater,
provided some of the original information used here. The document is available on the
World Wide Web at
www-unix.oit.umass.edu/∼evagold/excel.html
The United Kingdom Department of Industry’s National Measurement System has
produced a report on the inadequacies of the intrinsic mathematical and statistical func-
tions in versions of Excel prior to Excel 2003. This 1999 report, written by H.R. Cook,
M.G. Cox, M.P. Dainton, and P.M. Harris, is available on the World Wide Web at
www.npl.co.uk/ssfm/download/documents/cise27 99.pdf
Some published discussions of the use of Excel for statistical calculations are given
below. The first reference describes other dangers in using Excel (including for purposes
for which it is designed!), and gives a link to a document describing how a spreadsheet
user can get started using R. References (6) and (10) discuss Excel 2003, noting remaining
problems in its statistical distribution functions, random number generation, and nonlinear
regression capabilities.
1. Burns, P. (2005), “Spreadsheet addiction,”
(www.burns-stat.com/pages/Tutor/spreadsheet addiction.html).
2. Cryer, J. (2002), “Problems using Microsoft Excel for statistics,” Proceedings of the
2001 Joint Statistical Meetings
(www.cs.uiowa.edu/∼jcryer/JSMTalk2001.pdf).
3. Helsel, D.R. (2002), “Is it practical to use Excel for stats?,”
(http://www.practicalstats.com/Pages/excelstats.html).
4. Knüsel, L. (1998), “On the accuracy of statistical distributions in Microsoft Excel 97,”
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 26, 375–377.

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff

10
 5. Knüsel, L. (2002), “On the reliability of Microsoft Excel XP for statistical purposes,”
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 39, 109–110.
6. Knüsel, L. (2005), “On the accuracy of statistical distributions in Microsoft Excel
2003,” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 445–449.
7. McCullough, B.D. (2002), “Does Microsoft fix errors in Excel?” Proceedings of the
2001 Joint Statistical Meetings.
8. McCullough, B.D. and Wilson, B. (1999), “On the accuracy of statistical procedures
in Microsoft Excel 97,” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 31, 27–37.
9. McCullough, B.D. and Wilson, B. (2002), “On the accuracy of statistical procedures
in Microsoft Excel 2000 and Excel XP,” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis,
40, 713–721.
10. McCullough, B.D. and Wilson, B. (2005), “On the accuracy of statistical procedures
in Microsoft Excel 2003,” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, to appear.
11. Pottel, H. (2001), “Statistical flaws in Excel,”
(www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/∼nhunt/pottel.pdf).
12. Rotz, W., Falk, E., Wood, D., and Mulrow, J. (2002), “A comparison of random num-
ber generators used in business,” Proceedings of the 2001 Joint Statistical Meetings.

c 2005, Jeffrey S. Simonoff

11